Matt Chancey, epitome of Manliness? Ugh!

Feministing.com has an interesting, thought-provoking article on Matt Chancey being crowned the epitome of manliness by Old Spice-sponsored contest.

Feministing.com says:

Matthew Chancey won $2,000 and some Old Spice products. Is that a big deal? Not really. But the fact that this person was approved as a finalist by Old Spice and voted winner by nearly 10,000 people as an icon of manliness to follow, is what is disturbing here. If this isn't a sign we need to seriously reevaluate notions of masculinity in this country, I don't know what is. 

Chancey was chosen with nine other finalists that the contest claims "epitomize the manliness that used to exist before the arrival of metrosexual pretty boys." But apparently this "manliness that used to exist" regresses all the way back to when women didn't have the vote. A member of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, a homophobic, anti-choice, anti-contraception group. 

Do read the full article at the blog - Feministing.com

Heartless Doll on Ladies Against Feminism

Heartless doll has written a sharp article against Ladies Against Feminism.

Excepts from the article, point out where LAF gets its reasoning wrong:

"at Ladies against Feminism, we are inundated with articles and images that shove one view of "womanhood" down our throats. What's that view? Well for one thing it involves women referring to themselves as Mrs. Sherman or Mrs. Chancey instead of by first names. They post pictures of themselves doing housework in "feminine dress" and deliver such thoughtful missives to single women as: "Singleness...just the word can bring shudders and dread to a person's heart - especially if she is unmarried."

It's way groovy with me if women get a sense of pride from keeping a nice home and providing their husbands with warm meals. And while I applaud LAF for speaking out against the sexualization of young girls in media, their insistence that we whittle down a woman's identity to only that of a "keeper at home" is freakishly reactionary and really frustrating."

Do read the entire article here.

JoshuaC, ardent supporter of Matt Chancey

JoshuaC is the archtypical Matt Chancey, LAF supporter. Matt Chancey himself is quite nasty at his Mrs Binoculars blog on Jem. He makes a fool of himself as Jem is not the founder and does not run Ministry Watch.

But just as Matt Chancey is high on nastiness and low on facts, so is his ardent follower JoshuaC.

He doesn't bring much sense to argument, but he is quick to accuse other debaters of gossiping and devil's work. He talks about chivalry, but has no compunction brow-beating, Cindy Gee, Corrie, Grace and many other Christian women. While these women show Christian forbearance and tolerance for other people's opinion, JoshuaC just bulldozes ahead, sparing no one's feelings

Notice his interactions during the discussions at Dothan Eagle. The first news story was "PSC Candidate's wife says she chose homemaker's job."

JoshuaC says:

Vote for Matt Chancey July 15th!

We need energy independence in our state. We need accountability at the PSC.

www.mattchancey.com

Go Jennie! We need more people standing up for their rights and not the mainstream movement of the US today.

Cindy Gee says:

Uh, no, Jennie. NOBODY is “telling women they shouldn’t even be allowed the choice to be homemakers”, and nobody but you has brought up homosexual marriage, or said that it should be mainstream.

Feminsm has nothing to do with it.

Homemaking is still very much MAINSTREAM, and the concept of “one person, one vote” is likewise MAINSTREAM; conversely, in America today, the idea that suffrage should be limited to male heads of household—like the idea that homosexuals should marry one another or the idea that indentured servitude should be legal—is definitely NOT mainstream.

“Naturally, everyone has the right to choose his or her own path”, but when that path runs contrary to what most Americans consider normal and decent,  and when when the person on said path is seeking to serve in a position of governmental authority, one can expect to have normal, decent folks to have questions about it.

Grace says:

I applaud Jennie’s choice to be a homemaker, but her remarks about wives and homemaking on Vision Forum’s (Doug Phillips’ site) is extreme, and I don’t think has ever been “mainstream” thinking.

On the Vision Forum website, Jennie says that the Bible teaches that wives who work outside the home are blaspheming Scripture, according to the Apostle Paul in Titus 2.

That means she thinks working wives go against the Bible.  Funny how she can market her book, co-authored with Stacy McDonald, do all kinds of promos for it, in addition to writing it, and that doesn’t count as sin, but if a wife has to commute to a job for pay, that is blaspheming Scripture.

As I said, I applaud Jennie’s choice to be a SAHM.  I don’t agree with her view that the Bible necessarily condemns other women’s choices of where they work.

JoshuaC says:

Cynthia Gee and Grace obviously don’t understand everything they read. They try and try to find dirt on Matt and Jennie Chancey, but end up short.

“Is Chancey open to women in the workplace?

He says yes, since he has worked under women, over them and beside them for years.“

Some people have nothing better to do than try to bash people for their personal beliefs.

Cynthia and Grace, this still has nothing to do with the role of the PSC President of Alabama, and that’s what matters most.

I hope the readers of this blog aren’t as ignorant as Cynthia and Grace.

CindyGee says:

Sorry about the double posting, it looked as though my first comment wasn’t going to show up, so I posted it again.

Anyhow, it has occured to me that if the Chanceys ever grow tired of politics and religion, they could always become a husband-and-wife ventriloquist act. I’ve never seen people so adept at speaking out of both sides of their mouths! 

Jenny doesn’t believe that women have a historical or biblical right to vote….yet she says that she votes…. and she says that she doesn’t oppose women voting. 

The Chanceys have gone on record saying that it is a sin for a woman to work outside the home, yet Matt says that he is open to women in the workplace.

Sheesh!

I have only one question: when the Matt and Jenny Ventriloquist Show finally opens, who are they gonna get to be the PUPPETS?

Actually, Josh, there is quite a lot of dirt to be found on the Chanceys if one knows where to look, but why sling mud when they are doing such an exemplary job of discrediting themselves?

The Chanceys’ bizarre view on suffrage is easily documented through their own online writings, and that, together with their doublespeak concerning what they really believe and their insistance that everyone is picking on them simply because Jennie chooses to be a homemaker is quite enough for the moment.

JoshuaC says:

“Jenny doesn’t believe that women have a historical or biblical right to vote….yet she says that she votes…. and she says that she doesn’t oppose women voting.“

Just because someone believes one thing, doesn’t mean that they believe everyone should believe the same as they do.

Cynthia Gee, you are like a machine that won’t stop spreading false rumors.

What will you do when you keep running out of material? Keep creating false accusations?

Grace says:

Joshua, you are the one who needs to read more carefully.  I never said anything about Matt being open to working with women.  In truth, he has no choice, because that is the way things are.  And what I said about Jennie is on the Vision Forum website for all to read.  I don’t agree with her, and that isn’t dishing up dirt, the same as Matt saying he doesn’t agree with Doug Phillips on everything means Matt is dishing up dirt.

This article opened up about Jennie’s views, and it is a fact she said working wives (outside the home, that is) blaspheme Scripture, and one of the reasons she said that is because she said it’s impossible to work outside the home and keep the home, both.

While this may be true if the work keeps a wife away from home all the time, it doesn’t cover all the bases of women who work to supplement income, as Jennie does, on a part-time basis.

Jennie has had to work in order to write a book, which has been marketed, and this of necessity has taken time from being a homemaker.

I was merely pointing out that what she does, and what many, many women do by working some hours away from home is really no different, and clearly I implied there was a double standard.

But note this—THAT IS DISCUSSING HER PUBLIC REMARKS, and stating WHY I DISAGREE with them.  This hardly constitutes “digging up dirt” about someone.  Claiming my comment was “digging up dirt” is hysterical.

I know she says a woman shouldn’t be under more than her husband’s authority if she is married, but that is an impossibility, because a woman is always under more than one authority, whether she is single or married.  Being married doesn’t mean she has to stop being under all authority but her husband.  That is absurd.  She remains a citizen, perhaps a member of a church, and perhaps more venues where she is under authority, and then there is the authority of Christ and the Scriptures.

Grace says:

Let me be clear.  Here are Jennie’s own words, not mine:

www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/jennie_chancey_responds_to_tit.aspx

Jennie Chancey:

“How does a woman blaspheme the Word of God? This isn’t something we can just brush aside or take lightly as a “cultural thing.” St. Paul evidently believed it would be obvious enough to his readers that he didn’t need to say, “Leaving the home and going out into the workforce is sin,”  . . .

A simple glance at the domain which the wife is commanded to oversee and rule — yes, rule — should demonstrate beyond a doubt that it is not possible to be an effective, capable keeper at home while pursuing another (outside) occupation.“

OK, this very article mentioned Jennie pursuing “another (outside) occupation” of co-authoring a book.  Granted, it was about housewives, but authoring a book you market on Amazon and elsewhere, do interviews for, etc., does not qualify as homemaking in and of itself.  It is an “outside occupation,“ and a money making one at that.

(In between Lady Lydia made a lot of inapproriate, irrelevant, inaccurate comments that can be read here. Meanwhile, back to the dicussion)

CindyGee says:

Well, Mike, it isn’t pretty, that’s for sure!

I’m the Cynthia Gee that “Lady Lydia” has been ranting about. I sort of helped start all this, when I commented on another Dothan Eagle story last week, and pointed out that Alabama voters deserved to know that Matt and Jenny Chancey hold some rather bizarre beliefs regarding women’s suffrage, women in the workplace, etc. 

I wasn’t “slinging dirt”, or making up “falsehoods”, I simply described what the Chanceys believe, and provided links to their own sites and those of their close associates, where Matt and Jenny and their close associates described their views at some length.  My comment here was truncated for some reason, though since then it has spread in various forms across the internet; here it is in full, for the readers of the Dothan Eagle:

Alabama voters should be made aware that Matt Chancey opposes women’s suffrage on religious grounds. Matt Chancey and his wife Jennie believe that it is a sin (or at the very least, is highly inadvisable) for women to vote, hold political office, attend college, or work outside the home. These views are expounded upon at great length on Jennie Chancey’s website,Ladies Against Feminism.

Apparently, in the Chancey household’s ideal world, fathers would vote for the household, and all daughters would live at home “serving their fathers“ until the time of their arranged courtship and marriage, at which time they would pass from their father’s ownership into their husband’s possession, thus assuring that they would never have the chance to vote; theoretically, any adult sons living at home would be similarly disenfranchised.

Certainly women COULD vote under such a system if they were the heads of their own household, but the only time that this would happen would be when a woman was widowed, and then only until such time as she remarried or moved in with an adult male relative; in Chancey’s world, to ensure that widows remarried promptly, they might even be encouraged to avail themselves of Christian matchmaking/arranged-marriage services, such as this one, run by Jennie Chancey’s parents. (Jenny Chancey’s father is the Reverend Ovid Need; he is a prolific writer, for some samples of his work and his rather amazing views concerning Jews, Catholics, and women, go here and here and here.)

Matt Chancey is also on very intimate terms with Doug Phillips, the president and founder of VisionForum Ministries, a major homeschooling curriculum company. Phillips also teaches that God doesn’t allow women to vote or hold office. Doug Phillips is described by Matt Chancey as being his dear friend and mentor, while Phillips in turn praises as his own intellectual hero one of the most virulent racists of the 19th century, Robert L. Dabney, and has authored a book , Robert Louis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks.

...and Matt is not above a bit of internet sleight of hand, either, when it will aid his political ends, as shown by this article, from the Washington Post.

Head-of-household voting, arranged courtship and marriages, bride-prices…. that’s NOT the American way—in fact, it’s SO unAmerican that most folks would never dream that ANYONE in this day and age (other than fundamentalist Islamics) could hold such views, much less an educated man who is running for political office in the United States of America!

But, Matt Chancey and those close to him DO appear to hold such views, and the voters of Alabama need to know about it.

Cindy also said:

Another thing that’s slightly off-kilter here are Jennie and Matt’s rather transparent attempts to gloss over the controversy surrounding their views on suffrage—they attempt instead to make it appear that people are picking on Jennie because she chooses to be a full-time homemaker, and claim that the question at hand is one of whether or not women should be “allowed” the choice to be homemakers;  they also imply that it all boils down to a choice between radical feminists who advocate gay marriage, and “old fashioned” girls who eschew the right to vote.

This is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation—NOBODY is “telling women they shouldn’t even be allowed the choice to be homemakers”, and nobody but Jennie brought up homosexual marriage, or said that it is somehow mainstream.

Homemaking is still very much MAINSTREAM, and the concept of “one person, one vote” is likewise MAINSTREAM; conversely, in America today, the idea that suffrage should be limited to male heads of household — like the idea that homosexuals should marry one another or the idea that indentured servitude should be legal– is definitely NOT mainstream.

“Naturally, everyone has the right to choose his or her own path”, but when that path runs contrary to what most Americans consider normal and decent, and when when the person on said path is seeking to serve in a position of governmental authority, one can expect normal, decent folks to have questions about it.”

Cerebral says:

Only some freaky fundie right wing nut job would even utter that women shouldn’t vote.  Or that working is a sin. 

I have news for you: you don’t even have to have children if you don’t want them!  And you especially shouldn’t be having eight whom you refuse a decent education to.  That’s the crux of the whole fndie movement: lack of education, separation of the sexes, unequal rights and religious/superstitious extremism.  The rest of the country is laughing at Jennie.

Mike Keevert says:

WOW, thanks for the links Cindy.  I went to the LAF site and contrary to Jennie’s assertions I DID read many of her articles.  Again…WOW…seems Jennie is perfectly happy “barefoot and pregnant” and wants all other women to do the same.  Is this 2008 or 1808?

CindyGee says:

“ The rest of the country is laughing at Jennie.“

And, “Cerebral”, that’s a shame. Everybody should be able to believe as they choose without being laughed at.

My only point was that if people do have views that are “out there”, they ought to be willing to let the voters know about them, should they choose to run for public office, BUT, such scrutiny (and even criticism or denouncement as being cultic) is not the same as ridicule.

That being said however, I’d like to point out that being a fundamentalist does not automatically equate to being an extremist nut or a cult follower. A fundamentalist, strictly speaking, is someone who believes the fundamental, historically orthodox doctrines and truths of his or her religion, without a lot of trendy, man-made innovations (such as the blessing of gay marriages or the idea that the Bible forbids female suffrage or mandates homeschooling), and it is ironic that the churches which are most often described as fundamentalist are usually those unorthodox churches and cults which have gained a reputation for being the nut ward of Christianity.  The churches have brought this situation upon themselves, to a large extent, beginning in the 1980’s when the televangelists first started to gain a large following—many “fundamentalist” churches were happy to ride on their coat-tails, gaining new membars (and bigger Sunday collection plate hauls), even if it meant that they began to adopt some ideas that were NOT fundamental to historical Christianity; then in the 1990’s, Gary North and Phil Lancaster and the other bright young things in the Patriarchal/Agrarian/Dominionist movement got the Y2K disaster scare rolling, and many preachers and congregations bought into that, and when the televagelists fell to scandal and Y2K didn’t happen, the churches shared in the pop-preachers’ discreditation and as a consequence wore the resultant portion of egg facial.

But, the churches haven’t learned from the experience.

One look at the writings of Doug Phillips, Ovid Need (Jennie Chancey’s step-father, who calls Pope John Paul II an antichrist), Gary North, or Bruce Ware shows that they are certifiably outside of mainstream, historical Christianity, with their talk of arranged marriages, stoning people to death, letting women die from tubal pregnancies, etc, and yet their books are selling like hotcakes in “fundamentalist churches, especially throughout the South….. and still we who are mainstream, orthodox, fundamental Christians wonder why people outside the church are calling all fundamentalists and even all Christians into question? 

I’d say that it’s NO wonder, no wonder at all. If we in the churches do not police our own, and call a cult a cult when we see one, we shouldn’t blame non-Christians for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

Grace says:

“Only some freaky fundie right wing nut job would even utter that women shouldn’t vote.  Or that working is a sin.“

This isn’t necessary; I agree with Cynthia on that. 

Jennie, by and large, thinks women shouldn’t vote, unless they are the head of their household through widowhood, and perhaps even incapacitation of the husband, but I’m not sure on that one.  She believes in one household, one vote, and that should go to the man.

In this day and age, to teach that principle to wives is asking for trouble, because Jennie is allowed to vote, and could double her household vote, and if they have children over 18 living with them it could be tripled, quadrupled, etc..

So I have to ask why, if she is permitted by law to vote, that she doesn’t, because this belief played out in huge numbers nowadays means probable loss of elections for them.  And the only answer I can come up with is she really believes it would be a sin for her to cast a vote.  Even if she does just what her husband tells her to do.

On working, it is working outside the home that is the sin.  Jennie believes women should work, but for wives to be employed outside the home means they are blaspheming Scripture, because she is sure all women who do this are neglecting their husbands and children.  I disagree.

And she thinks wives can’t be serving two masters, so if a woman works outside the home, it is a sin for her to be under a boss’ authority.  Again, I disagree.  That concept is just simply not in Scripture.  When Jesus said you can’t serve two masters, he was talking about serving God and money.  But that goes for men, too.  And we have to remember that we are all to be subject to multiple authorities—if in school, our teachers, our bosses, our law enforcement officers, the government, the elders at our churches, so Jesus could not possibly have meant that a person was to never have more than one authority in his life at a time.  What He was saying is you can’t have more than one ultimate master, who is the despot, in your life, at a time.

That of course, shut up JoshuaC for a while!

Then there was another article in the Dothan Eagle, called "FAQs about the upcoming primary runoff elections."

Here again JoshuaC displayed his foot-in-the-mouth affliction.

In the comments section you can find:

JoshuaC says:

We need energy independence in our state. We need accountability at the PSC. We need Matt Chancey for PSC President.

The Chancey Five-Point Plan to Improve the Public Service Commission

1. Nuclear Power Expansion

2. Clean Coal and Other Fossil Fuels

3. Hydro-electric Expansion

4. Supporting Economic Development

5. PSC Performance Review

www.mattchancey.com

Cynthia Gee says:

I wonder if Alabama voters are aware that Matt Chancey opposes women’s suffrage on religious grounds? 

Matt Chancey and his wife Jennie believe that it is a sin for women to vote, hold political office, attend college, or work outside the home. 

These views are expounded upon at great length on Mrs.Chancey’s website, Ladies Against Feminism:

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/Hot_Button_Issues_2

JoshuaC says:

Cynthia Gee is an example of people hearing what they want to hear regardless of what is actually said. Jennie’s point was that gender should have nothing to do with voting if you have a system where a vote represents a family. In a sense, her position is actually very “progressive” since it would give representation to children, whereas they are completely left out of the suffrage question today.

Keep in mind that people do have personal convictions. Just like Cynthia Gee probably has personal convictions that some people don’t agree with.

People used to vote as a family and also people who owned land used to vote, because their vote affected their land.I wonder if Cynthia Gee knew this? And if so, then she is ashamed of her founding fathers because that’s how they voted!

Defending Jennie Chancey on voting

DothanEagle.com carried  a news item about the lovely couple - Matt and Jennie Chancey. Too bad, Matt didn't win the election. But anyway, those horrible Christian feminists were out there again tearing Jennie apart.

I did my best. But those mean girls, kept bringing up things I couldn't answer; things I had buried under the carpet; things I deleted in my blog; things I pretend never existed. 

I mean who would want the racist, sexist mean things they said about others, shoved under their nose and asked for an explanation.

So when it got too hot to handle, I just ignored these women and didn't answer any of the questions they raised.

DothanEagle wrote this article called "PSC Candidate's wife says she chose homemaker's job."

For which there were many nasty comments. The comments read:

Lady Lydia:

I don’t know why any kind of issue is being made of Jennie Chancey’s choice to be home and teach her own children, care for the home, and be a helpmate to her own husband.

What is the big deal, anyway? None of the wives of the Presidents, and few of the wives of the senators, work, or even have to work. We have yet to see a president married to a career woman who carries on her career during his tenure in the White House, so what is so all alarmingly strange about a candidate’s wife being a homemaker?

Cynthia Gee likes to stir the pot of controversy, taking words and phrases out of context, and rarely reads an entire article in context.  She has been all over the web verbally trashing people, including myself,  who do not share her feministic view of life.

I have seen her do it so many times that now I very much doubt that any thing she says is entirely truthful.

She loves to call people “hypocrites” if they don’t line up to exactly the belief system she thinks they should, and she likes to find “apparent” discrepencies.

The fact is, the LAF site was created to show women they had some alternative to the feminist agenda, which today, results in many women missing out on marriage, children and homemaking.

Having spent a lifetime in schools, young women grow up believing they cannot stay home, and that it is somehow less than intelligent. The LAF site exposes feminists for what they are. Here is one of the feminist “ministers” quoted from her pulpit in a university: “In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.“—Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman.

The LAF site, started by Jennie and myself, exposes the feminist movement for what it is: a social engineering program that gave women careers instead of families. 

We know women work, and we have nothing against it. However, we are saying that it is not more important than your marriage, your children, or your home. Women have always worked, but in the past, did not do it to prove a point, or prove equality, and they had the sense to leave it when it was time to marry and have children.

  Today, as a result of feminism, which supposedly promoted “choice”, most women who work, feel they have no choice. We were all warned, in the 60’s that if women didn’t quit demanding the “right to work”, they would soon not have the right to stay home, and that is exactly what is happening.

Cynthia needs to read up on this a little more, rather than pulling out lines and phrases out of only selected articles that she dislikes. She strains at a gnat, and swallows a camel.

Whether or not homemaking is “mainstream” is not the point. If everyone went around with a piece of string hanging out of their mouths, it would be “mainstream” I suppose, but does that mean we should do it, just because it looks “mainstream”?

Let’s get real: didn’t you ever tell your mother,when she didn’t want you to go with the crowd, and wear something that was rather wierd, “But Mom, EVERYONE is doing it!“ Our mothers usually said, “If everyone jumped off the bridge, would you do it, too?  So, “mainstream” is just a rabbit trail that critics are going on, away from the point of what the candidate and his wife really stand for: the stability of marriage, home and family, which is the strength of our nation.

Grace:

Lady Lydia, this article is about Jennie.  I’m not making a big deal about her choice to be a SAHM.

I’m making a deal out of the fact that Jennie has said that wives and mothers who choose other options are sinning (blaspheming the word of God qualifies as sinning).  That’s what she said on the Vision Forum site, and for your convenience the link and some of the quotes are below.

I’m not sure you understand what some of us are saying.  I already said I applauded her choice to be a SAHM.  What I don’t applaud is her judging that people who choose differently from her are necessarily sinning, because the Bible doesn’t say what Jennie claims it says, and the Bible is the standard we Christians are to evaluate all things by. 

And I made the point that some moms do work outside the home about as part-time as Jennie does with her writing and dress design.  But what Jennie does is OK, and what some of these other women do is wrong, according to Jennie’s own words.  It just doesn’t add up or make sense.  I’m talking about her article on the VF site.

The only reason I’m commenting here is because the main article is about Jennie’s views, which I assume Matt is in full agreement with.  I haven’t a clue as to whether Chancey or Cavenaugh would be a better prez for the PCA, nor do I think the issues raised here are relevant to that office.

Lady Lydia:

Grace:  Go to my recent post at www.homeliving.com and read the quote by an ancient writer, Adam Clarke, on that particular passage that you are concerned about, at the end of the post.

You are obsessed with Jennie Chancey and your blogs are a stretch to try to find something sinister about Matthew because of her.  I believe your “work” on the web proves what I’ve said here: that you spend enormous time accusing people of hypocrisy and judgementalism, when you yourself have that huge log in your own eye.  You haven’t discussed any issue of any importance in holding office, such as the actual qualifications of a candidate.

Your blogs and posts smack of jealousy and vengeance and  sweeping assumptions that show you willing jump to conclusions without hearing out the matter completely. So what if she writes a book. She didn’t have to leave home to do it or neglect her family. I have written a book also and it it is as easy as posting a comment online. If done in 15 minute increments daily, while children are sleeping, it can amount to quite a bit. For some people, that is more relaxing than watching television, or going out for coffee and you can keep an eye on your home at the same time. I don’t have to spell it out for you step by step or minute by minute, as your blogs and posts show someone who spends an enormous time on the web running other people down, by name.

Corrie:

She loves to call people “hypocrites” if they don’t line up to exactly the belief system she thinks they should, and she likes to find “apparent” discrepencies.“

“Lady” Lydia,

I hardly think you should be talking. 

You are the one who makes fun of old ladies who wear shorts and say that they look like “giant pull-ups”.  You are the one who made derisive comments about the women who fled Hurricaine Katrina and the clothing they wore and how you wouldn’t be caught dead in their outfits.  You said they had no sense of dignity. 

You are not being “trashed” because she is a feminist.  You are being “trashed” because of the uncharitable, uncompassionate and unChristlike words you say about people.

This issue is not about homemaking.  I am a homemaker.  This is issue is about the extreme teachings of people running for office.  This issue is about Twinkle Cavanaugh, a member of the “Monstrous Regiment of Women”.  If anyone wants to know what I am talking about, google it.  Jennie Chancey appeared in this documentary and it is all about how women should not be in leadership positions in government or the secular sphere, working side by side with men as if they were equals.  (Yes, this is what VF/Phillips says.)

The problem is that if women are not just like you and the LAF crowd, they are sub-Christians who are entrenched in sin and are Marxist Feminists who reject the biblical teachings of womanhood.

And we all know that is balogna.

Here are your own words for the edification of all the readers.  We shall see who is the hypocrite and who is trashing others. 

“Lady Lydia-

“Re: this comment: My husband was commenting on the looks of the elderly women in a farmer’s market we visited today. They seemed to have no idea what their rear ends looked like with their pull-up pants and big shorts that looked like giant diapers.”

Carla-

“You hit the nail on the head, Lydia. I have been wondering how to describe this ugly, ugly “style” and this is it. Combine this diaper-look with the nearly shaved hair of many older women and your word “creepy” is perfect. I cannot fathom why anyone would want to present themselves this way, even in the privacy of their own home, let alone in public. I’m sure you have been watching scenes from Katrina victims. I kept hoping I would see some lady fleeing the hurricane in clothes which looked presentable. Instead, the images I was presented were almost uniformly an ugly tee-shirt combined with these big shorts. Can you imagine having only those clothes on your back and nothing else? When will the women of our country wake up? No wonder marriages are falling apart.

Blessings, Carla”

Lady Lydia’s Reply-

“Comment: What does the phrase “die with dignity” mean to us? We have let the modernists liberal define this for us, making it completely contrary to real dignity. I’ve heard people say “I wouldn’t be caught dead in that outfit.” As a people, we used to be concerned with the impression and the influence we left others at our passing. I’m not suggesting we get all dressed up for a hurricane, but if those clothes which provide dignity and coverings are the only thing in our closets and the only thing available to us, we won’t be caught in a storm with the big shorts, saggy tee shirts and flip-flops. Tragedies always bring scenes of ripped and dirty clothing, but I think it is very telling about our morals and values when we allow our women to trapse about in nothing but garments that would have been underwear a hundred years ago. What a sight we are presenting to the overseas telly-viewers. I’m so embarrassed that these scenes are perceived by Europeans who look up to our country and admire us, as representative of us! ”“

Corrie:

“Lady” Lydia,

“We know women work, and we have nothing against it. “

That is a BLATANT lie.

There isn’t enough space on this blog to quote from source materials that show you are not telling the truth.

The fact is, you ARE against women working and Jennie even says it is “sin”.  Not only is it sin for a woman to work while she has children in the home but a woman should never work outside of the home because it is “serving two masters”.  This comes from Jennie, also.  In fact, Phillips states that women cannot work outside the home in society because it says that women are equals with men. 

I cannot believe you can make such a statement and expect people to believe it.

A woman who works outside of the home is guilty of a HUGE sin and it is proof that she is a feminist who doesn’t care about her children and family, according to you and your fellow followers of the VF paradigm. 

Shall we bring up college and how you all believe that women should not go to college because it is a waste of money and resources since the “normative” thing to do for a woman is be a wife and stay at home, homeschooling mother of many?  And that a daughter should be transferred from her father’s authority to her husband’s authority and she shall never be out from under their roof?

Corrie:

Lydia,

You are the same one who stated that black Christian slaves probably didn’t go out to the fields to work but stayed in their cabins, having their husband’s babies and keeping home for their husbands and making dinner for them when they got home from working (picking cotton in the field is akin to working a job????).

Why did you say this?  To prove that Christian women know that it is wrong to work outside of the home.

Why not just be honest about how you and the LAF crowd feel about working women?  It is a matter of public record and lying about it will prove nothing except that Christians are just as dirty with their politics as the next person.

Grace:

Lady Lydia said of me: “You are obsessed with Jennie Chancey and your blogs are a stretch to try to find something sinister about Matthew because of her.“

No, I was confining myself to Jennie’s views, which are public.  There isn’t anything sinister about showing people an article Jennie wrote about working wives, stating where I think she has a double standard, and where I disagree with her.

And I said this has nothing to do with Matt.  Unless people are going to realize where they stand on a lot of issues, especially about women, and don’t want a person with those kinds of views in public office, but I can’t say what the climate is in Alabama.  I have no clue as to whether talking about their well-publicized views on working wives, wives voting, etc., will help them or hurt them in this campaign.  I’m not in the Deep South.

No, I am not dishing up dirt on Matt Chancey.  If I wanted to do that I would probably start talking about mrsbinoculars where he did a smear job against a couple whom Doug Phillips excommunicated from his church.  But that isn’t what this article is about, so that is about enough of that.

You’re a real sweetheart, Lady, Lydia, I tell you what.

Corrie:

Lydia,

You are not acting like a lady.

Is ad hominem all you have?  You falsely accuse Cindy and now Lynn but yet you have not one quote to back up what you say? 

I would rather be a pull-up wearing, short-haired lady than a woman who looks down on the elderly (dressing the way they do because of arthritis and other physical ailments) and victims of natural disaster. 

I would rather be honest about what I believe than lie about it in order to get elected. 

I would rather stick up for the truth than cover it up with a flurry of ad hominem abusives and red herrings.

If the teachings of VF/Chancey/McDonald/Botkin/et al are so wonderful, good, righteous, and biblical, then why are you all downplaying them when you talk to the press? 

I would invite people to go to the truewomanhood site and to go to Lynn’s site at indeliblegrace at blogspot (dot) com and read for yourselves whether Lydia is blowing the familiar smoke and adjusting the patriocentric mirrors.

Grace says:

“I have written a book also and it it is as easy as posting a comment online.“

Oh, really?  

“If done in 15 minute increments daily, while children are sleeping, it can amount to quite a bit.“

I’ll bet.

“For some people, that is more relaxing than watching television, or going out for coffee and you can keep an eye on your home at the same time. I don’t have to spell it out for you step by step or minute by minute, as your blogs and posts show someone who spends an enormous time on the web running other people down, by name.“

Really?  Just like the following site—

http://mrsbinoculars.com/ ?

Matt Chancey probably spent an enormous amount of time on that site, too. 

Btw, where have I run people down, Lady Lydia?  Can you give some specific examples, with quotes?

Grace says:

http://mommylife.net/archives/2007/05/the_doug_philli_1.html

Since I’m being accused of being spiteful and vengeful, here’s another real interesting link.  Barbara Curtis, a fairly well known blogger and author herself, a staunch, vocal pro-life conservative woman with many children, was deleted from Jennie’s Ladies Against Feminism site.

Read the above link to find out why.

Just saying what’s out there, not anything that hasn’t already been made public.

Grace says:

Lady Lydia, um, after reading some of the quotes Corrie posted, and finding out that they are out there on the internet, I don’t think you are doing Matt Chancey the greatest of favors coming on this thread and trying to lambast *me* from now until next week (when this election thank God, will be history).

I of course shut up after that! But not without whispering to myself: "Do not cast pearls before swine lest they turn around and rend you to pieces."

Negative reviews for Just Breathing the Air

I managed to get my good bf Jennie Chancey to write nice things about my book Just Breathing the Air at Lulu.com and LadiesAgainstFeminism, the LAF site we co-author. I even got Mr Jean M Byers to say a few words.

But then of-course the nay-sayers had to come. Actually not many, but one. 

People should not write negative reviews. There should be a law forbidding it.

Well, this anonymous (too cowardly to write their own name) person's review was:

 This book is a series of small vignettes taken from the author's childhood on a homestead in Alaska. Touching and heartwarming stories about the simple life, but the point that connects the stories seems to be the layout of the homestead and its surroundings, rather than the chronology of the family's stay there. There seems to be a story or two about each geographical feature, but the reader is left wondering about the details... Why the author's parents chose to do this (other than a sense of adventure), how long they lived there, things like medical care--were the younger children born at home?--and most importantly, why they left and where they went. The building of the family home is discussed at some length, but the author skips from every day home life to an account of what the homestead looks like today (overgrown). 

Beautiful full color pictures! But more in-depth captioning, especially of people, would have been nice.

Many people might term my actions childish, petty and a little spiteful, but at least they can't say I don't know how to give it back as good as it comes.

The minute she wrote that, I posted a reply - not just one reply, but three replies.

I mean who does she think she is? Writing such reviews! Tsk!

Anyway I told her:

1.  If you read the book, it tells how long they were there. Just look at the date from the beginning and then the date at the end.
2. This story was done in a very logical order: Joe and Lillian meet and find opportunity in the last frontier, a place where many people were excited about at that period in history. 
4. They describe their first year and how cold it was and how the cabin and later the house was built, and how they kept the children warm. 
   
5. Daily life over the next 10 years is described, along with the lessons the children learned about values. 
   
6. It is capped off by going back to the site of the house, showing how it returned to nature when the family left. 
   
7. You can read more about how people understood this book, in a review called "Living Free: The Story of Just Breathing the Air," by Jennie Chancey at her site called Ladies Against Feminism (A Hint: This is how you really review a book)
   
8. The reviewer above will also notice that it says "Volume 1 of the adventures of an Alaskan Homestead Family." If you seem to be curious about certain things, it was because it was written with that purpose in mind: that the next volumes would fill in some of the details and leave you wanting to know more. The book was limited because of cost, to a certain number of pages. We had to continue the story in Volume 2, which will be out soon.
   

I of course tried to get Lulu.com to take down the negative reviews, but they refused. Grumble! Grumble